Author
Topic: Answers in Genesis Research Journal (Read 2809 times)

From another post here I learned of the research journal that Answers in Genesis has published for the past six years. I was completely unaware of this journal but after a quick Google search found the site:

The journal is published once a year and so far has six volumes (2008-2013). Most volumes have somewhere around 15 articles although this year there are only seven articles (how sad). Now, I did some cursory reading and I don't know where they get off calling this a research journal. This is more of a glorified opinion journal. There is no research i.e. lab work, experimentation, clinical work, models, computer programs, etc. Nonetheless it offers some rip-roaring good reading for anyone interested. I've found a slew of articles dealing with microbiology and evolution that have me occupied. I've even learned something from them![1]

So it addresses the age old question of whether God created microbes and viruses and whatnot on the same day that he created plants (Day 3, apparently) or whether these invisible (and sometimes pesky) little beings were created "after the fall."

SPOILER ALERT

After extensive research, (consisting of a bunch of guys sitting around a table and discussing it at the Creation Museum) it appears that God decided to roll out members of the microbe community in stages.

When God created the plants (Day Three), He likely created a biomatrix of bacteria and fungi with them at the same time to sustain them (table 2). This symbiotic model for the origin of microbes does not preclude free-living forms. The natural ecosystems that God created—land, sea, and air—would also need microbes for nutrient cycling, decomposing waste, and photosynthesis for oxygen for all creatures. The soil surrounding the plants most likely accommodated the need to recycle elements from fallen leaves and make them useful for regeneration.

But wait until you see what God did on Day 5!!!!

In His provision, God made microscopic creatures that could live in mutualism with “everything” that moves. The Sustainer of all life created symbiotic microbes like bacteria, fungi, algae, and protozoans to uphold and maintain these marvelous ocean and atmospheric creatures (table 2). They would also have to communicate with one another. For example, in the deep oceans, squid and flashlight fish have luminescent symbiotic bacteria living inside their bodies to light their way and communicate with other creatures. Living corals have dinoflagellate algae living inside them to provide food (from photosynthesis), and the coral body, in turn, provides a stable home for the algae, as ocean currents sway the small animals on the atoll (an oceanic, reef formation by corals). Birds digest (cellulose) food better with bacteria living inside their caecum stomach.

But since he didn't create creepy crawly things until Day 6, apparently, the microbes that like to hang out with the creepy crawlies were created at just the right time!

When He created the “creeping things” like termites on Day Six, He created the protozoans and bacteria interwoven in their gut to ensure their survival. Very few animals can digest wood and hard cellulose. Termites have mutualistic, flagellated protozoans called Trichonympha (even the Trichonympha have symbiotic bacteria inside them) living inside their guts. We see this pattern of mutualistic bacteria living inside larger animals as well. When He created cattle (ruminants), He created the methanogenic bacteria inside their rumen to digest food. Finally, in His most brilliant stroke, He wove together man with microbes (table 2). Most land animals have billions of symbiotic bacteria or fungi living inside them to uphold their life. Just like an embroidered quilt, He made humans with bacteria on their skin and in their intestines. When He created man, He also created E. coli in their intestines to help them digest food, etc. Located on his skin, Staphylococcus epidermidis helps protect his skin. Man is “covered” inside and outside his body with millions of microbiotic organisms (i.e., normal flora) to maintain normal body functions and sustain life in changing environments.

Now I know what you are thinking. What about viruses? You see, Creation Science does not yet have all of the answers. But it appears that these scientists are pursing whether the roll out hypothesis may have practical applications for the entire viral community.

The determination of virus origin is uncertain. It may be that viruses (as we classify them today) have multiple origins. Some may be degenerate parts from cells after the Curse; still others may have their origin during the days of creation. Today, we think of viruses (Latin for “poison”) only in the context of disease. However, some viruses (or at least virus-like genes) are involved in a positive function in nature. Some groups of viruses, like bacteriophages, play a positive role in controlling bacteria in ecosystems and may play a role in diversity.

I think it is pretty clear that no one but God could have done all of this. And it is sure pretty exciting to examine God's great plan.

The Almighty did some of His most awesome work in the first six days of the planet’s existence. Although He created the starry host with galaxies, planets, moons, the sun, and other large objects, He also created microorganisms demonstrating His care for detail in the minutest part of life. God built into all living things the need to sustain, repair, and reproduce. In many cases, microbes are essential for these three processes to take place in plants, animals, and humans. From the beginning, God made His creation fully mature and complex forms fully formed. This would ensure continuity and stability for the times to come. Although we cannot be certain as to how and specifically when the Creator made viruses and microbes, it is within His character to make entire “packaged” systems to sustain and maintain life. If you think about God as an artist who paints an oil canvas, He does it with entire strokes: He does not paint by numbers.

I have to say that when I finished the article, I felt like there were still some questions that were unanswered. Foremost in my mind was whether Adam got to name the little critters. And if not, why? And if not Adam, who?

And perhaps more importantly, do viruses, bacteria, and other microbes have souls? So the righteous ones populate the heavens? I know that Fido goes to heaven when he dies, and that little Johnny will be reunited with him in the afterlife. I'm not sure if Bessie, who selflessly gave her body to the McDonald's people so that Johnny could have a hamburger, will be there too. But I think we all hope she will. But what about the smallest, most innocent little life forms? What happens to them, for all of eternity?

I can't wait for next year's journal to come out and address these vital issues.

What I love is the fact that this is presented in a 'peer reviewed' journal. I notice Nature wasn't offered this stuff as they would have rejected it so the poor creation guys had to produce their own magazine and, presumably, review each other's articles. I find it quite funny really.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

So it addresses the age old question of whether God created microbes and viruses and whatnot on the same day that he created plants (Day 3, apparently) or whether these invisible (and sometimes pesky) little beings were created "after the fall."

According to the Christian Creationist model, God (or rather gods, as Genesis puts it) would not be a creator of any bad stuff. So, the gods must have created good germs and viruses that then turned poisonous after the fall of man. But we probably won't find any 'research' into this in a Creationist journal, would we?

That made me smile! I love the way they bewail not being allowed to publish in the usual journals like Nature but fail to point out that the reason is that they preach and don't really do any research at all. It seems as though they have points to make and then search the Internet to find quotes something like the point.

From what I can see, one would need to pretty amazing evidence to deny the age of the earth as these people do. One would have to be able to show that the dating systems we use and actually wrong and don't work. Instead, we get preaching and the real science is ignored.

Of course, for those who haven't seen them, Thunderf00t on Youtube has a whole series of videos entitled "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists " all of which are worth watching. Here's the first one -

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I've finished reading the "research" article I used earlier[1] and I gotta say... ho-ly shit...

Starting off with the good I would like to say that there is actually some hint that the author has some basic knowledge of the subject of microbiology. You have to read in-between the lines of creation jargon but it's there.

For instance these passages hint at some knowledge:

Quote

Most microbes are beneficial to man and nature. Only about 5–10% of all bacteria are pathogenic. Many microbes live in a mutualistic relationship with plants, animals, humans, and other microbes. Mutualism is a type of symbiosis (Greek sym, meaning “together”, and bios, meaning “life”). The term symbiosis is used to describe an intimate association between organisms of different species. Some symbiotic relationships between microbes and plants, animals, and humans are essential for life on earth. For this reason most microbiologists maintain that bacteria, fungi, protists, and other microbes have been maligned in the news media. Without our intestinal flora, we would not digest food nor acquire vitamins and minerals very efficiently. Without fungi, bacteria, algae, and protozoans, life on earth could not last. This is because microbes provide essential “services” (e.g., nitrogen fixation, nitrification, and denitrification) in nutrient cycles.

Quote

He made humans with bacteria on their skin and in their intestines. When He created man, He also created E. coli in their intestines to help them digest food, etc. Located on his skin, Staphylococcus epidermidis helps protect his skin. Man is “covered” inside and outside his body with millions of microbiotic organisms (i.e., normal flora) to maintain normal body functions and sustain life in changing environments.

Quote

The determination of virus origin is uncertain. It may be that viruses (as we classify them today) have multiple origins. Some may be degenerate parts from cells after the Curse; still others may have their origin during the days of creation. Today, we think of viruses (Latin for “poison”) only in the context of disease. However, some viruses (or at least virus-like genes) are involved in a positive function in nature. Some groups of viruses, like bacteriophages, play a positive role in controlling bacteria in ecosystems and may play a role in diversity.

The above paragraphs that I have quoted show that, underneath all the creation crap the author has some basic knowledge of biology and microbiology, which is a little surprising. He correctly stated that many bacteria are completely harmless and only a handful of the total number are pathogenic to humans, bacteria are essential to life (not just human), they are important in energy chains, "good" bacteria protect man from infection by seriously pathogenic bacteria by their mere presence, and finally he showed a rudimentary summary of the origin of viruses, be it that they originated from degenerate cells or arose from rogue nucleic acid/genes.

However, that's really the best I can say about the article and the author. And even that might be just throwing the guy a bone. The entire premise of the article rests on these lines from the abstract:

Quote

[W]here do microbes fit into the creation account? Were they created along with the rest of the plants and animals in the first week of creation, or were they created later, after the Fall? ... Ongoing research, based on the creation paradigm, appears to provide some answers to these puzzling questions. The answers to these questions are not explicit in Scripture, so the answers cannot be dogmatic. However, a reasonable extrapolation from biological data and Scripture can be made about the nature of microbes in a fully mature creation. This article attempts to provide reasonable answers to when microbes were created and is meant to stimulate discussion and further research in this area.

From the very beginning of the article the author states that Scripture is not very forthcoming in explicitly stating when microorganisms were created. That should be a tip-off to any reader. From there on everything the author claimed was based on "reasonable extrapolation from biological data and Scripture". In other words, nothing but opinion and grasping at straws. That's really it. There's nothing to really comment on. The entire article is the author's opinion regarding when bacteria were created. He ends up deciding that bacteria were created in situ when God created their particular niche. For instance, the bacteria that live in soil and in symbiotic relationships with plants were created when God created plants on day three of creation. Likewise the bacteria that live in the oceans and within symbiotic relationships with sea life were created when God created sea life on day five. And finally the rest of bacteria for the animals were created with the animals on days five and six. Basically all that is summed in this line:

Quote

The natural symbiosis of microbes with other creatures is the norm. Therefore, we postulate that microbes were created as “biological systems” with plants, animals, and humans on multiple days, as supporting systems in mature plants, animals, and humans.

The only things worth actually commenting on are the things the author got demonstrably wrong:

Quote

Some have postulated that microbes were created on a single day of Creation, such as Day Three—when the plants were made. This is partially due to the “seed-like” characteristics that bacteria and fungi have—therefore classifying microbes as plants.

I know that bacteria were once, very long ago, classified as plants or plant-like. But come on man, this is the 21st century. We have known that bacteria are not plants and are separate entities for hundreds of years. Bacteria and fungi are "seed-like" only in the context that some bacteria produce spores and spores share the property with seeds in germinating to full bodied organisms. In addition some bacteria are round like seeds and fungi branch out like plants. Other than those very superficial characteristics plants are more closely related to bats, beavers, aardvarks, cobras, bumblebees, black mold, whales, humans, and all the protists than they are related to bacteria. At this point the author isn't referencing different classification orders, or phyla, or even kingdoms. He's referencing different domains of life...

Quote

However, since the corruption of creation, the corrupted retrovirus, HIV, and various leukemia viruses turn off the entire immune system, leaving the body open to devastating infections. These examples may provide clues to the origin of viruses and how some may have been created during Creation Week by design and how some have been corrupted as a result of the Fall.

It appears to me that the author is suggesting that HIV came about as a degenerate virus from "the Fall". Translated into English the author is suggesting that HIV is man's fault from our sinful nature.

These are pseudonyms. The writers, who hold PhDs in fields related to the topics of their abstracts, are scientists at prominent research facilities in the eastern part of North America. They prefer to keep their creationist credentials hidden for the moment until they achieve more seniority.

Umm... what? They're purposely hiding their creationist credentials and using pseudonyms on their papers? That's unheard of in actual research journals. You produce the work and you put your name on it for all the world to see.

Sure, I'll read it and see what substance there is. Although I quickly skimmed the abstract and few paragraphs in the body until I came upon a footnote. I always check out footnotes, especially on known disingenuous publications. Here's the line that has the footnote indicated and what the footnotes says:

Quote

Table 1. Creationist publications that claim to be peer reviewed1

Quote from: Footnote

1. We know by our personal experience that all practice some degree of peer review, but no creationist journal has ever published a full audit to confirm their peer-review activities.

Where did the microbes go during the flood? Did Noah take all the microbes onto the Ark? That was one heckuva fun boat ride, like a Carnival cruise in a hurricane. Complete with a zoo and biological weapons factory on board-- just no bathrooms, lights or air conditioning.

Where did the microbes go during the flood? Did Noah take all the microbes onto the Ark?

The author would respond that since God created microbes in situ within the organisms or niches they inhabit that by taking in the animal that the microbe inhabits Noah would effectively also be gathering the various microorganisms. For instance, by gathering in his family Noah would also be gathering in the microbes that God created with and to inhabit humans. By taking in elephants Noah would also be taking in the microorganisms that God created with and to inhabit elephants. And et cetera for all animals... I'm unsure how the author would respond about plants and the microbes that are associated with plants, as the author put it somehow. I don't think Noah took plants into the Ark.

I know, it's completely convoluted. I'm just playing devil's advocate based on what I read from that article.

So, the point here seems to be that God created bacteria and yet disease is a curse from God. God must therefore directly command the legions of germs, rather than simply cursing a person by magic. Ho hum... one fewer miracle.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”